IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 January 2009 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080011893 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his Report of Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 214) to show all of his awards. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that he wants an update showing the awards he is authorized. 3. The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214; Letter of Transfer, effective 2 December 1954; a training course certificate for Arithmetic I, dated 24 February 1954; his Service Record (DD Form 230) for the period from 8 January 1953 to 7 January 1961; his Qualification Record - Enlisted Personnel (DA Form 20); Special Orders Number 279, 1264 Army Support Unit, dated 29 November 1954; his Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 5 January 1961; and Letter Order Number 7-78G (Annual Training Order) dated18 July 1956, with amendment dated 26 July 1956. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. On 8 January 1953, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States for 2 years. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 1815 (Ordnance Supply Specialist). 3. On or about 13 July 1953, the applicant was assigned for duty as an ordnance supply specialist in the Federal Republic of Germany. He returned to the United States on or about 1 December 1954. 4. On 1 December 1954, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement). He had attained the rank of private, pay grade E-2 and had completed 1 year, 10 months and 24 days of creditable active duty service. 5. Item 27 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of his DD Form 214 lists his awards as the National Defense Service Medal and the Army of Occupation Medal with Germany Clasp. 6. Item 39 (Qualification in Arms) of his DA Form 20 shows that he was awarded the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle [M-1] Bar and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Carbine Bar. 7. Section 17 (Indorsements) of the applicant's DD Form 230, shows that on 2 December 1954 he was favorably considered for award of the Good Conduct Medal. 8. Army Regulation 600-65 (later superseded by Army Regulation 672-5-1), in effect at the time, provided policy and criteria concerning service medals.  It stated that the Army Good Conduct Medal was awarded for each 3 years of continuous enlisted active Federal military service completed on or after 27 August 1940, for first award only, 1 year served entirely during the period 7 December 1941 to 2 March 1946 and, for the first award only, upon termination of service on or after 27 June 1950 of less than 3 years but more than 1 year.  At the time, a Soldier's conduct and efficiency ratings must have been rated as "excellent" for the entire period of qualifying service and there must have been no convictions by court-martial. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence clearly shows that the applicant was favorably considered for award of the Good Conduct Medal. Therefore, he should be awarded this medal. 2. The evidence clearly shows that the applicant was awarded the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Carbine Bar. Therefore, these awards should be shown on his DD Form 214. BOARD VOTE: ____X___ ____X___ ____X__ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. awarding him the Army Good Conduct Medal for the period from 8 January 1953 to 1 December 1954; and b. showing, in addition to the awards already shown on his DD Form 214, that his awards include the Army Good Conduct Medal, Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar, and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Carbine Bar. _______ _ X _______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080011893 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20080011893 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1